United States v. Marquise Figures
Headline: Cell phone search incident to arrest upheld
Citation: 138 F.4th 438
Brief at a Glance
Police can search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant if it's found in their pocket during a lawful arrest and officers reasonably believe it contains evidence of the crime.
- Challenge warrantless cell phone searches by arguing they were not incident to a lawful arrest.
- Argue that officers lacked a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the specific crime of arrest.
- Assert that the cell phone was not within your immediate control at the time of arrest.
Case Summary
United States v. Marquise Figures, decided by Sixth Circuit on May 21, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Marquise Figures' motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone. The court held that the search of Figures' cell phone was a lawful search incident to arrest, as the phone was within his immediate control at the time of arrest and the officers had a reasonable belief that the phone contained evidence of the crime for which he was arrested. The court rejected Figures' argument that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court held: The court held that a cell phone, like other containers, can be searched incident to a lawful arrest if it is within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of the arrest.. The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the crime for which Figures was arrested, satisfying the evidentiary justification for a search incident to arrest.. The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a cell phone's digital contents, should apply retroactively to searches conducted before its issuance.. The court determined that the search of Figures' cell phone was conducted contemporaneously with his arrest and was therefore a lawful search incident to arrest.. The court concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they were based on a legitimate governmental interest and were not overly intrusive.. This decision clarifies that while Riley v. California generally requires a warrant for cell phone searches, the search incident to arrest exception can still be invoked under specific circumstances, particularly when the phone is immediately accessible and believed to contain evidence of the crime of arrest. This ruling is significant for law enforcement's ability to conduct limited searches of cell phones during arrests, balancing privacy concerns with investigative needs.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Police arrested Marquise Figures and searched his cell phone without a warrant. The court ruled this was legal because the phone was in his pocket when arrested, and officers reasonably believed it contained evidence related to the drug crime he was arrested for. This means evidence found on the phone can be used against him.
For Legal Practitioners
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Figures' motion to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of his cell phone was a lawful search incident to arrest. The court applied the 'immediate control' and 'reasonable belief' prongs, finding the phone in Figures' pocket was within his control and that officers reasonably suspected it held evidence of drug trafficking, given the quantity of drugs seized.
For Law Students
This case, United States v. Figures, illustrates the application of the search incident to arrest exception to cell phones. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the search, emphasizing that the phone's location in the arrestee's pocket satisfied the 'immediate control' requirement and that the officers' reasonable belief of evidence related to the crime of arrest justified the search under the Fourth Amendment.
Newsroom Summary
A federal appeals court upheld the warrantless search of a suspect's cell phone, ruling it was a lawful search incident to arrest. The court found the phone was within the suspect's reach when arrested and that officers had a reasonable suspicion it contained evidence of drug crimes.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that a cell phone, like other containers, can be searched incident to a lawful arrest if it is within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of the arrest.
- The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the crime for which Figures was arrested, satisfying the evidentiary justification for a search incident to arrest.
- The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a cell phone's digital contents, should apply retroactively to searches conducted before its issuance.
- The court determined that the search of Figures' cell phone was conducted contemporaneously with his arrest and was therefore a lawful search incident to arrest.
- The court concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they were based on a legitimate governmental interest and were not overly intrusive.
Key Takeaways
- Challenge warrantless cell phone searches by arguing they were not incident to a lawful arrest.
- Argue that officers lacked a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the specific crime of arrest.
- Assert that the cell phone was not within your immediate control at the time of arrest.
- Consult with legal counsel immediately following an arrest if your cell phone was searched.
- Understand that the 'immediate control' and 'reasonable belief' standards are key to challenging cell phone searches incident to arrest.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review, as the appeal concerns the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the legality of a search incident to arrest, which are questions of law.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Sixth Circuit on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which denied Marquise Figures' motion to suppress evidence found on his cell phone.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that the search of the cell phone was lawful. The standard is whether the government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Tests Applied
Search Incident to Arrest (SIA)
Elements: The arrest must be lawful. · The search must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest. · The item searched must have been within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of arrest. · The police must have had a reasonable belief that the item searched contained evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made.
The court found that Figures' arrest for drug possession was lawful. The search of his cell phone occurred shortly after his arrest, satisfying the contemporaneous requirement. The court determined the cell phone was within Figures' immediate control as it was in his pocket at the time of arrest. Crucially, the court held that officers had a reasonable belief that the phone contained evidence of drug trafficking, citing the large quantity of drugs found on Figures and the common use of cell phones in drug operations.
Statutory References
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | Fourth Amendment — The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court applied this amendment to determine the legality of the cell phone search. |
Constitutional Issues
Fourth Amendment - protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"The search of Figures’ cell phone was a lawful search incident to arrest because the phone was within his immediate control at the time of arrest and the officers had a reasonable belief that the phone contained evidence of the crime for which he was arrested."
"The Fourth Amendment permits a search incident to a lawful arrest to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence."
"In the context of a search incident to arrest, officers need a reasonable belief that the cell phone contains evidence of the crime for which the arrestee was arrested."
Remedies
Affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress.
Entities and Participants
Judges
Attorneys
- Alice S. Fisher
Key Takeaways
- Challenge warrantless cell phone searches by arguing they were not incident to a lawful arrest.
- Argue that officers lacked a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the specific crime of arrest.
- Assert that the cell phone was not within your immediate control at the time of arrest.
- Consult with legal counsel immediately following an arrest if your cell phone was searched.
- Understand that the 'immediate control' and 'reasonable belief' standards are key to challenging cell phone searches incident to arrest.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are arrested for drug possession, and the police immediately search your cell phone, which was in your pocket, without a warrant.
Your Rights: You have the right to challenge the search if it wasn't incident to a lawful arrest or if officers didn't have a reasonable belief the phone contained evidence of the crime.
What To Do: If evidence from your phone is used against you, consult an attorney immediately to file a motion to suppress, arguing the search violated your Fourth Amendment rights.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for police to search my cell phone without a warrant when they arrest me?
Depends. If the search is incident to a lawful arrest, the phone was within your immediate control at the time of arrest, and officers had a reasonable belief the phone contained evidence of the crime for which you were arrested, then it can be legal.
This ruling applies to the Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee).
Practical Implications
For Individuals arrested for crimes
This ruling reinforces that cell phones, even though they contain vast amounts of personal data, can be subject to warrantless searches incident to arrest under specific conditions, potentially leading to more evidence being admissible against arrestees.
For Law enforcement officers
The ruling provides clarity and affirms the legality of searching cell phones incident to arrest when the established criteria are met, potentially encouraging such searches in similar circumstances.
Related Legal Concepts
The general rule under the Fourth Amendment that searches require a warrant issu... Exclusionary Rule
A legal principle that prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used in ... Probable Cause
A legal standard requiring sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a...
Frequently Asked Questions (34)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (7)
Q: What is United States v. Marquise Figures about?
United States v. Marquise Figures is a case decided by Sixth Circuit on May 21, 2025.
Q: What court decided United States v. Marquise Figures?
United States v. Marquise Figures was decided by the Sixth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was United States v. Marquise Figures decided?
United States v. Marquise Figures was decided on May 21, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for United States v. Marquise Figures?
The citation for United States v. Marquise Figures is 138 F.4th 438. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What court decided the United States v. Figures case?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case.
Q: Who is Marquise Figures?
Marquise Figures is the defendant in this case who appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found on his cell phone.
Q: What crime was Marquise Figures arrested for?
The opinion states he was arrested for drug possession, and the officers believed his phone contained evidence of drug trafficking.
Legal Analysis (13)
Q: Is United States v. Marquise Figures published?
United States v. Marquise Figures is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in United States v. Marquise Figures?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in United States v. Marquise Figures. Key holdings: The court held that a cell phone, like other containers, can be searched incident to a lawful arrest if it is within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of the arrest.; The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the crime for which Figures was arrested, satisfying the evidentiary justification for a search incident to arrest.; The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a cell phone's digital contents, should apply retroactively to searches conducted before its issuance.; The court determined that the search of Figures' cell phone was conducted contemporaneously with his arrest and was therefore a lawful search incident to arrest.; The court concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they were based on a legitimate governmental interest and were not overly intrusive..
Q: Why is United States v. Marquise Figures important?
United States v. Marquise Figures has an impact score of 60/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision clarifies that while Riley v. California generally requires a warrant for cell phone searches, the search incident to arrest exception can still be invoked under specific circumstances, particularly when the phone is immediately accessible and believed to contain evidence of the crime of arrest. This ruling is significant for law enforcement's ability to conduct limited searches of cell phones during arrests, balancing privacy concerns with investigative needs.
Q: What precedent does United States v. Marquise Figures set?
United States v. Marquise Figures established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a cell phone, like other containers, can be searched incident to a lawful arrest if it is within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of the arrest. (2) The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the crime for which Figures was arrested, satisfying the evidentiary justification for a search incident to arrest. (3) The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a cell phone's digital contents, should apply retroactively to searches conducted before its issuance. (4) The court determined that the search of Figures' cell phone was conducted contemporaneously with his arrest and was therefore a lawful search incident to arrest. (5) The court concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they were based on a legitimate governmental interest and were not overly intrusive.
Q: What are the key holdings in United States v. Marquise Figures?
1. The court held that a cell phone, like other containers, can be searched incident to a lawful arrest if it is within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of the arrest. 2. The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that the cell phone contained evidence of the crime for which Figures was arrested, satisfying the evidentiary justification for a search incident to arrest. 3. The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a cell phone's digital contents, should apply retroactively to searches conducted before its issuance. 4. The court determined that the search of Figures' cell phone was conducted contemporaneously with his arrest and was therefore a lawful search incident to arrest. 5. The court concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they were based on a legitimate governmental interest and were not overly intrusive.
Q: What cases are related to United States v. Marquise Figures?
Precedent cases cited or related to United States v. Marquise Figures: United States v. Riley, 573 U.S. 373 (2014); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
Q: Can police search my cell phone if they arrest me?
Yes, under certain circumstances. If the arrest is lawful, the phone was within your immediate control at the time of arrest, and officers reasonably believed it contained evidence of the crime you were arrested for, the search can be lawful.
Q: What is a 'search incident to arrest'?
It's a legal exception allowing police to search an arrested person and the area within their immediate control without a warrant to prevent them from grabbing a weapon or destroying evidence.
Q: Does the Fourth Amendment protect my cell phone data?
Yes, but there are exceptions. While generally requiring a warrant due to the sensitive nature of cell phone data, a search incident to arrest is one such exception if specific conditions are met, as in the Figures case.
Q: What does 'immediate control' mean for a cell phone search?
It means the area the arrestee could reach to grab a weapon or evidence. In the Figures case, the phone being in his pocket at the time of arrest satisfied this requirement.
Q: What is 'reasonable belief' for searching a cell phone incident to arrest?
It's a standard requiring more than a hunch but less than probable cause. Officers must reasonably believe the phone contains evidence related to the specific crime for which the person was arrested.
Q: What happens if my cell phone is searched illegally?
Evidence obtained from an illegal search may be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used against you in court under the exclusionary rule.
Q: What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable belief?
Probable cause requires a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. Reasonable belief, used here for SIA of phones, is a lower standard, requiring a reasonable suspicion that the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does United States v. Marquise Figures affect me?
This decision clarifies that while Riley v. California generally requires a warrant for cell phone searches, the search incident to arrest exception can still be invoked under specific circumstances, particularly when the phone is immediately accessible and believed to contain evidence of the crime of arrest. This ruling is significant for law enforcement's ability to conduct limited searches of cell phones during arrests, balancing privacy concerns with investigative needs. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: Do I need a lawyer if my phone was searched after arrest?
Yes, it is highly recommended. An attorney can assess whether the search was lawful and file motions to protect your rights, such as a motion to suppress evidence.
Q: What should I do if police want to search my phone during an arrest?
You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. You can state that you do not consent to a search of your phone and wish to speak with your lawyer.
Q: How long after an arrest can police search my phone?
The search must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest. The Figures court found a search shortly after arrest to be permissible.
Q: Does this ruling apply everywhere in the US?
No, this ruling is from the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Other federal circuits and states may have different interpretations.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was the Fourth Amendment adopted?
The Fourth Amendment was proposed by the First Congress on September 25, 1789, and was ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights.
Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on cell phone searches incident to arrest?
Yes, the Supreme Court case Riley v. California (2014) generally requires a warrant to search a cell phone, but it left open the possibility of exceptions like search incident to arrest under specific circumstances, which this Sixth Circuit case addresses.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in United States v. Marquise Figures?
The docket number for United States v. Marquise Figures is 23-3331. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can United States v. Marquise Figures be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What is the standard of review for this type of appeal?
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo because the appeal involved questions of law, specifically the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the legality of the search.
Q: What is a motion to suppress?
A motion to suppress is a formal request made to a court to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial, typically because it was obtained illegally.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- United States v. Riley, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
Case Details
| Case Name | United States v. Marquise Figures |
| Citation | 138 F.4th 438 |
| Court | Sixth Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-21 |
| Docket Number | 23-3331 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 60 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision clarifies that while Riley v. California generally requires a warrant for cell phone searches, the search incident to arrest exception can still be invoked under specific circumstances, particularly when the phone is immediately accessible and believed to contain evidence of the crime of arrest. This ruling is significant for law enforcement's ability to conduct limited searches of cell phones during arrests, balancing privacy concerns with investigative needs. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Search incident to lawful arrest, Digital privacy and cell phones, Retroactivity of Supreme Court decisions, Reasonable belief standard |
| Judge(s) | John R. Tunheim |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of United States v. Marquise Figures was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Fourth Amendment search and seizure or from the Sixth Circuit:
-
Cory Driscoll v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
Sixth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Title VII Race Discrimination CaseSixth Circuit · 2026-04-23
-
Alexander Ross v. Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC
Judicial Immunity Shields Attorneys from Malicious Prosecution ClaimsSixth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
Phillip Jones v. Tim Shoop
Sixth Circuit: Attorney's Failure to Object to Jury Instructions Not Ineffective AssistanceSixth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife
Ohio fishing regulations upheld against Commerce Clause challengeSixth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
John Ream v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury
Taxpayer Fails to State Claim for Unlawful Disclosure of Tax InformationSixth Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
Elaine Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp.
Hospital Wins Discrimination Suit Over TerminationSixth Circuit · 2026-04-20
-
United States v. Christen Clark
Consent to search phone during arrest was voluntary, court rulesSixth Circuit · 2026-04-16
-
United States v. Moreno Jackson, II
Sixth Circuit Upholds Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable CauseSixth Circuit · 2026-04-15